Jump to content
Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.
EE Broadway Local

Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

Recommended Posts

18 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

 

The problems with one-way loops are that they are basically only convenient 50% of the time, which cuts ridership potential. 

Terminating at Essex would be better and require less construction, since I don't think such a local line needs to be all that busy and need two full terminating tracks.

3 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

And that is what I later on proposed, along with my idea for a split (J)(Z) that would between them run from 95th to Jamaica Center, with both lines terminating at Chambvers ( (J) from Jamaica Center-Chambers with a few rush hour trains to Broad, (Z) from Chambers-95th Street at all times that would eliminate the late-night (R) shuttle since those needing Whitehall specifically could switch to the (N) anywhere between 59th and Court).  

Agreed. Either you run a very low-frequency service around a single-track loop (like the elevated People Mover in Downtown Detroit) or you run two different services that run opposite directions around a double-track look (like CTA does with the Purple and Brown lines, both of which make the same stops on Chicago’s North Side ‘L’ between Belmont and Merchandise Mart, but then go their separate ways around the Loop before turning back north again). The second option is bad, because it requires reverse-branching two services on the less-busy outer portion of the line, in order to have an equal amount of trains running in both directions around the loop. But you end up with less service on the busier downtown loop stations, so it isn’t worth it.

Terminating both the (J) and (Z) at Chambers from opposite sides is a terrible way to operate trains that will benefit no one. Even if you continue a few rush hour (J) trains south to Broad, it’s still going to be a big bottleneck at Chambers. I wouldn’t be surprised if that played a role in the old <RR>’s demise. Better dispatching and platform conductors won’t help either. 

I’m fine with doing a (J) / (Z) split. But let’s do it like this (I suggested this plan during last year’s split-the- (R) discussion, but with different letters):  

- Eliminate skip stop service entirely.

- (J) makes all stops between Jamaica Center and Broadway Junction. During weekday mornings, (J) runs peak express between Broadway Junction and Marcy Ave. Weekday afternoons, it runs peak express between Marcy and Broadway Junction. The (J) will still terminate at Broad St at all times. 

- (Z) gets a complete makeover (possibly with a different letter) in which it runs at all times between Broadway Junction and 95th Street-Bay Ridge, replacing the (R) as the primary 4th Avenue Local. The (Z) will make all stops between Broadway Junction and Marcy; take the (J) for express service. 

- (R) runs between 71st Avenue and Whitehall St all times except overnight hours. Replaced by (Z) in Brooklyn, so the late night (R) shuttle is eliminated. 

- (W) runs between Astoria and Bay Ridge on the same weekday hours it currently runs to supplement the (Z)

- (N) is unchanged, so still late nights via Montague. Maybe it can finally run express between Canal and 34th on weekends.

Now, personally, I’m only suggesting this plan as a relatively easy way to split the (R) without building brand new infrastructure. I’d much rather eliminate the (N)(R)(W) merge at 34th and be able to run more trains per hour on all four Broadway services. But to do that would require the primary 4th Avenue local service to be a Broadway service, not a Nassau St service.

Edited by T to Dyre Avenue
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/17/2020 at 3:15 PM, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Agreed. Either you run a very low-frequency service around a single-track loop (like the elevated People Mover in Downtown Detroit) or you run two different services that run opposite directions around a double-track look (like CTA does with the Purple and Brown lines, both of which make the same stops on Chicago’s North Side ‘L’ between Belmont and Merchandise Mart, but then go their separate ways around the Loop before turning back north again). The second option is bad, because it requires reverse-branching two services on the less-busy outer portion of the line, in order to have an equal amount of trains running in both directions around the loop. But you end up with less service on the busier downtown loop stations, so it isn’t worth it.

Terminating both the (J) and (Z) at Chambers from opposite sides is a terrible way to operate trains that will benefit no one. Even if you continue a few rush hour (J) trains south to Broad, it’s still going to be a big bottleneck at Chambers. I wouldn’t be surprised if that played a role in the old <RR>’s demise. Better dispatching and platform conductors won’t help either. 

I’m fine with doing a (J) / (Z) split. But let’s do it like this (I suggested this plan during last year’s split-the- (R) discussion, but with different letters):  

- Eliminate skip stop service entirely.

- (J) makes all stops between Jamaica Center and Broadway Junction. During weekday mornings, (J) runs peak express between Broadway Junction and Marcy Ave. Weekday afternoons, it runs peak express between Marcy and Broadway Junction. The (J) will still terminate at Broad St at all times. 

- (Z) gets a complete makeover (possibly with a different letter) in which it runs at all times between Broadway Junction and 95th Street-Bay Ridge, replacing the (R) as the primary 4th Avenue Local. The (Z) will make all stops between Broadway Junction and Marcy; take the (J) for express service. 

- (R) runs between 71st Avenue and Whitehall St all times except overnight hours. Replaced by (Z) in Brooklyn, so the late night (R) shuttle is eliminated. 

- (W) runs between Astoria and Bay Ridge on the same weekday hours it currently runs to supplement the (Z)

- (N) is unchanged, so still late nights via Montague. Maybe it can finally run express between Canal and 34th on weekends.

Now, personally, I’m only suggesting this plan as a relatively easy way to split the (R) without building brand new infrastructure. I’d much rather eliminate the (N)(R)(W) merge at 34th and be able to run more trains per hour on all four Broadway services. But to do that would require the primary 4th Avenue local service to be a Broadway service, not a Nassau St service.

I agree. Although, I'd also advocate an (RJ) service via Sea Beach Express from Coney Island to 8 Av, then via your (Z) line to Chambers (Essex during peak), except during the peak, then the (N) runs local on 4th, and the (RJ) runs fully express on Sea Beach, and express on 4th.

So:

Weekends/non-rush:

(RJ)(Z) LOCAL on 4th

(RJ) express Kings Hwy to Coney Island

(D)(N) EXPRESS on 4th

(N) local Kings Hwy to Coney Island

Weekday rush:

(Z)(N) LOCAL on 4th

(D)(RJ) EXPRESS on 4th

(RJ) FULL EXPRESS on Sea Beach (peak-direction), extended to Essex.

(N) LOCAL on Sea Beach

Nights:

(D)(N)(Z) LOCAL on 4th

No (RJ)

(N) LOCAL on Sea Beach

Use (N) for (RJ) service

Edited by Jova42R

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Jova42R said:

I agree. Although, I'd also advocate an (RJ) service via Sea Beach Express from Coney Island to 8 Av, then via your (Z) line to Chambers (Essex during peak), except during the peak, then the (N) runs local on 4th, and the (RJ) runs fully express on Sea Beach, and express on 4th.

So:

Weekends/non-rush:

(RJ)(Z) LOCAL on 4th

(RJ) express Kings Hwy to Coney Island

(D)(N) EXPRESS on 4th

(N) local Kings Hwy to Coney Island

Weekday rush:

(Z)(N) LOCAL on 4th

(D)(RJ) EXPRESS on 4th

(RJ) FULL EXPRESS on Sea Beach (peak-direction), extended to Essex.

(N) LOCAL on Sea Beach

Nights:

(D)(N)(Z) LOCAL on 4th

No (RJ)

(N) LOCAL on Sea Beach

Use (N) for (RJ) service

I would personally love for the Sea Beach express tracks to be put into service, but let's not make (N) riders' commutes much more miserable to accommodate an extra low-demand service.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Jova42R said:

I agree. Although, I'd also advocate an (RJ) service via Sea Beach Express from Coney Island to 8 Av, then via your (Z) line to Chambers (Essex during peak), except during the peak, then the (N) runs local on 4th, and the (RJ) runs fully express on Sea Beach, and express on 4th.

So:

Weekends/non-rush:

(RJ)(Z) LOCAL on 4th

(RJ) express Kings Hwy to Coney Island

(D)(N) EXPRESS on 4th

(N) local Kings Hwy to Coney Island

Weekday rush:

(Z)(N) LOCAL on 4th

(D)(RJ) EXPRESS on 4th

(RJ) FULL EXPRESS on Sea Beach (peak-direction), extended to Essex.

(N) LOCAL on Sea Beach

Nights:

(D)(N)(Z) LOCAL on 4th

No (RJ)

(N) LOCAL on Sea Beach

Use (N) for (RJ) service

The (N) serves Midtown Manhattan via the Manhattan Bridge, while this (RJ) service would run via the Montague St Tunnel. It would be a very unpopular move to make the (N) local in Brooklyn and subject it to a new merge with the (B) and (Q) before entering DeKalb Avenue. And why switch the (RJ) and (N) services’ roles on 4th Avenue?

Edited by T to Dyre Avenue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New (8), a elevated line running along the stretch of Manhattan with 50% R211’s, 25% R160’s, 25% R179’s

 Bronx Express, Dyre Avenue Express, Park Avenue Local, Park Avenue Express, Flushing Super-express, Ocean Parkway Local, Ocean Parkway Skip-Stop, Ocean Parkway Express


From Wakefield-241st Street Station (2) (Bronx Express), Dyre Avenue (5) (rush hour only, also Dyre Avenue Express), or Flushing-Main Street (7)to Atlantic Avenue (2)(3)(4)(5)(B)(D)(N)(Q)(R) or Coney Island (D)(F)(N)(Q) (new track) 

Wakefield Branch:

Wakefield-241st Street (2) 
Gun Hill Road (2) <5> 

E 180 Street (2)(5) (8) to Dyre Avenue

3rd Avenue-149th Street

133rd Street

138th Street (6)

Port Morris-133rd Street

Main Line:

125th Street-Park Avenue (4)(5)(6)(Q)

(Italicized: Local; Bold: Express; Underlined: Common Stop)

116th Street

110th Street

103rd Street

96th Street (Q) 

86th Street

72nd Street (Q) 

63rd Street (F)(Q)

59th Street (N)(R)(W) and (8) to Flushing (free transfer to (F) at 57th Street)

Along Broadway

49th Street (R)(W) 

Time Square-42nd Street (1)(2)(3)(7)(A)(C)(E)(N)(Q)(R)(W)(S) 

14th Street-Union Square (4)(5)(6)(L)(N)(Q)(R)(W)

14th Street-3rd Avenue (L)

Bowery (J)(Z) 
Park Row (4)(5)(6)(J)(Z) 

After crossing the Brooklyn Bridge

High Street (A)(C) 

Jay Street (A)(C)(F)(R) 

DeKalb Avenue (B)(D)(N)(Q)(R) 

Atlantic Avenue (2)(3)(4)(5)(B)(D)(N)(Q)(R)

Coney Island Branch:

Prospect Park (F)(G) 

Fort Hamilton Parkway (F)(G) 

Along Ocean Parkway

Cortelyou Road (Skip-Stop, Local)

Bay Pkwy (Local)

Kings Highway (Express, Skip-Stop does not stop here) (Free transfer to the (F) train)

Avenue U (Local)

Avenue X (Skip-Stop stops here, Local)

Avenue Z (Local) 

Brighton Beach Avenue (Q) (Express)

West 8th Street-New York Aquarium (F)(Q)

Stillwell Avenue-Coney Island (D)(F)(N)(Q)

 

Dyre Avenue Branch: 

Dyre Avenue (5)

Pelham Pkwy (5)(Bx12 +SBS+)

180th Street (2)(5)(Q44 +SBS+)

Continues through Wakefield Branch and Main Line

Dyre Avenue Branch terminates at Atlantic Avenue


Flushing Branch:

Flushing-Main Street (7)

Mets-Willets Point (7)

Woodside-61st Street (7)(LIRR)

Queensboro Plaza (7)(N)(W)

Through Queensboro Bridge

57th Street (N)(R)(W)

Continues along Main Line

Flushing Branch terminates at Atlantic Avenue all times except late nights, rush hours, and weekends.

Late Night Terminal: Park Row

Weekend and Rush Hour Terminal: Coney Island

 

Wakefield Branch and Main Line terminate at Coney Island all times.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

The (N) serves Midtown Manhattan via the Manhattan Bridge, while this (RJ) service would run via the Montague St Tunnel. It would be a very unpopular move to make the (N) local in Brooklyn and subject it to a new merge with the (B) and (Q) before entering DeKalb Avenue. And why switch the (RJ) and (N) services’ roles on 4th Avenue?

If you previously took the (N), take the (RJ). Some rush hour trains could run to 57 St-7 Av if needed.

For (R) riders, take the (N) or (Z).

(D) stays the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/20/2020 at 3:47 PM, Jova42R said:

Red Hook Light Rail Proposal:

https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=19TDLNqNtF21VKb70gFefV5e3ai0u0tZy

(T) runs fully local via surface streets

(TX) runs via Atlantic Avenue Tunnel (old LIRR Tunnel).

This would be run with 2-car trams. 

Thoughts?

This is an interesting idea. In fact, something like this was proposed before the BQX idea ever came to be. I believe that the Brooklyn Historic Railway Association were huge advocates for advocating for a Red Hook Streetcar in the 1990’s before the city deemed their idea infeasible. 
 

here’s a source for more info:

https://www.brooklynpaper.com/train-buffs-dreams-streetcar-desire-will-become-reality/

https://forgotten-ny.com/2000/03/red-hook-trolley-revival/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

This is an interesting idea. In fact, something like this was proposed before the BQX idea ever came to be. I believe that the Brooklyn Historic Railway Association were huge advocates for advocating for a Red Hook Streetcar in the 1990’s before the city deemed their idea infeasible. 
 

here’s a source for more info:

https://www.brooklynpaper.com/train-buffs-dreams-streetcar-desire-will-become-reality/

https://forgotten-ny.com/2000/03/red-hook-trolley-revival/

True, but did anyone propose having an express run thru the Atlantic Av Tunnel?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/20/2020 at 3:47 PM, Jova42R said:

Red Hook Light Rail Proposal:

https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=19TDLNqNtF21VKb70gFefV5e3ai0u0tZy

(T) runs fully local via surface streets

(TX) runs via Atlantic Avenue Tunnel (old LIRR Tunnel).

This would be run with 2-car trams. 

Thoughts?

 

21 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

This is an interesting idea. In fact, something like this was proposed before the BQX idea ever came to be. I believe that the Brooklyn Historic Railway Association were huge advocates for advocating for a Red Hook Streetcar in the 1990’s before the city deemed their idea infeasible. 
 

here’s a source for more info:

https://www.brooklynpaper.com/train-buffs-dreams-streetcar-desire-will-become-reality/

https://forgotten-ny.com/2000/03/red-hook-trolley-revival/

I have edited the map - trains now have a different routing ant terminate at Hoyt-Schemerhorn. Thoughts now?

BTW, the Boerum Pl station would have a free connection with the (2)(3)(4)(5)(R) at Boro Hall and the (A)(C)(F)(R) at Jay St. These trams would use OMNY ONLY! So, free transfer with OMNY.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This may have happened already in the 346 pages of this thread, but I didn't find anything in my search, so I'll ask here.

What do people here think would be the best option to resolve the congestion issues at Dekalb? My understanding is that by having the 6 Av routes on the north manh bridge tracks and the Broadway routes on the south, there would be less (or no more at all) crossover/merging issues at Dekalb. I had this idea the other day, but I don't know if it makes sense, so I was hoping to have some holes poked in it:

(D) and (B) [run the same in Manhattan in the Bronx]:

(D)  runs the same as it does now

(B)  runs as the (N) does now. The (D) and (B) both take the express track at Dekalb.

(Q) runs as it does now.

(N) runs as the (B) does now on the Brighton Line.

I don't see there being a huge issue with this, because Broadway and 6 Av have plenty of transfer opportunities and are already pretty close as it is. Would a rider from the Brighton line who works near Bryant Park be super inconvenienced to now have to get off at Times Sq?

People riding from Sea Beach to Astoria or Brighton to the Bronx already had a pretty burdensome commute as is. I think the trade-off of less congestion-related delays makes up for the now-needed transfer.

And, to add capacity, totally unrelated the DeKalb interchange, would it also make sense to run the (W) Astoria to Bay Ridge and terminate the (R) at 9 Av on the West End? I don't see a use in adding West End express service, especially now that a cleared up interchange will make West End service better to begin with.
 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, YungMarxian said:

This may have happened already in the 346 pages of this thread, but I didn't find anything in my search, so I'll ask here.
What do people here think would be the best option to resolve the congestion issues at Dekalb? My understanding is that by having the 6 Av routes on the north manh bridge tracks and the Broadway routes on the south, there would be less (or no more at all) crossover/merging issues at Dekalb. I had this idea the other day, but I don't know if it makes sense, so I was hoping to have some holes poked in it:

(D) and (B) [run the same in Manhattan in the Bronx]:

(D)  runs the same as it does now

(B)  runs as the (N) does now. The (D) and (B) both take the express track at Dekalb.

(Q) runs as it does now.

(N) runs as the (B) does now on the Brighton Line.
I don't see there being a huge issue with this, because Broadway and 6 Av have plenty of transfer opportunities and are already pretty close as it is. Would a rider from the Brighton line who works near Bryant Park be super inconvenienced to now have to get off at Times Sq?
People riding from Sea Beach to Astoria or Brighton to the Bronx already had a pretty burdensome commute as is. I think the trade-off of less congestion-related delays makes up for the now-needed transfer.
And, to add capacity, totally unrelated the DeKalb interchange, would it also make sense to run the (W) Astoria to Bay Ridge and terminate the (R) at 9 Av on the West End? I don't see a use in adding West End express service, especially now that a cleared up interchange will make West End service better to begin with.
 

Yes, this has been proposed before. My thoughts:

(B): Concourse-CPW Local, 6 Av Express, 4 Av Express (except rush, see (RJ)), Sea Beach Local

(D): Concourse Local, CPW-6 Av Express, 4 Av Express, West End Local

(N): Astoria Local, Broadway-Brighton Express

(Q): 2 Av Local, Broadway Express, Brighton Local

(RJ): NEW SERVICE:

(BOLD = all times, UNDERLINED = rush hours only, ITALICS = non-rush hours only)

  • Broad St (J)(Z)
  • Fulton Center (A)(C)(J)(Z)(2)(3)(4)(5)
  • Chambers St (J)(Z)(4)(5)(6)<6>
  • NEW STATION: Mott St
    • runs via a new connection from Nassau St to Manhattan Bridge
    • via Manhattan Bridge
  • Dekalb Av (N)(Q)(R)
  • Atlantic Av (B)(D)(N)(Q)(R)(2)(3)(4)(5)
  • Union St (B) - rush (R) - all times
  • 4 Av - 9 St (B) - rush (F)(G)(R) - all times
  • Prospect Av (B) - rush (R) - all times
  • 25 St (B) - rush (R) - all times
  • 36 St (B)(D)(R)
  • 45 St (B) - rush (R) - all times
  • 53 St (B) - rush (R) - all times
  • 59 St (B)(R)
    • (RJ) runs peak express from 8 Av to Kings Hwy, then full express from Kings Hwy to Coney Island.
  • 8 Av (B)
  • Fort Hamilton Pkwy (B)
  • New Utrecht Av (B)(D)
  • 18 Av (B)
  • 20 Av (B)
  • Bay Pkwy (B)
  • Kings Hwy (B) (*see note below)
  • Coney Island (B)

*Kings Hwy Station on Sea Beach would be rebuilt to have 2 island platforms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Jova42R said:

Yes, this has been proposed before. My thoughts:

(B): Concourse-CPW Local, 6 Av Express, 4 Av Express (except rush, see (RJ)), Sea Beach Local

(D): Concourse Local, CPW-6 Av Express, 4 Av Express, West End Local

(N): Astoria Local, Broadway-Brighton Express

(Q): 2 Av Local, Broadway Express, Brighton Local

(RJ): NEW SERVICE:

(BOLD = all times, UNDERLINED = rush hours only, ITALICS = non-rush hours only)

  • Broad St (J)(Z)
  • Fulton Center (A)(C)(J)(Z)(2)(3)(4)(5)
  • Chambers St (J)(Z)(4)(5)(6)<6>
  • NEW STATION: Mott St
    • runs via a new connection from Nassau St to Manhattan Bridge
    • via Manhattan Bridge
  • Dekalb Av (N)(Q)(R)
  • Atlantic Av (B)(D)(N)(Q)(R)(2)(3)(4)(5)
  • Union St (B) - rush (R) - all times
  • 4 Av - 9 St (B) - rush (F)(G)(R) - all times
  • Prospect Av (B) - rush (R) - all times
  • 25 St (B) - rush (R) - all times
  • 36 St (B)(D)(R)
  • 45 St (B) - rush (R) - all times
  • 53 St (B) - rush (R) - all times
  • 59 St (B)(R)
    • (RJ) runs peak express from 8 Av to Kings Hwy, then full express from Kings Hwy to Coney Island.
  • 8 Av (B)
  • Fort Hamilton Pkwy (B)
  • New Utrecht Av (B)(D)
  • 18 Av (B)
  • 20 Av (B)
  • Bay Pkwy (B)
  • Kings Hwy (B) (*see note below)
  • Coney Island (B)

*Kings Hwy Station on Sea Beach would be rebuilt to have 2 island platforms.

The (RJ) idea is interesting. And adding an express stop to Sea Beach sounds good if it is feasible. Would Chambers need to have a control room added/restored to help trains turn around during non rush hour? Also, would the Mott St station be on Mott and Canal? Tunnel access to the Other Canal st Stations or OOS transfer?

Edit: further question: is the demand for more south BK service to Lower Manhattan large enough to grant this renovation?

Edited by YungMarxian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Separate post for a truly dumb idea:

(GG)  Rush hour only
Church Avenue (F)<F> (G)
7 Av (F)<F>(G) 
Bergen St (F)<F> (G) (since this is a dumb idea anyway, let's assume the lower platform is restored)
Jay St-Metrotech (A)(C)(F)<F>(R) 
High St (A)(C) 
Fulton St (2)(3)(4)(5)(A)(C)(J)(Z) 
Chambers St-WTC Park Pl (2)(3)(A)(C)(E) 

Turning around after Chambers St would require the T.O. to walk through the car from end to end though. But like I said. Dumb idea. For added dumbness, you can have the train terminate after 14 St by running up to the layaway track after 23 St and doing the same procedure. Again. Dumb. But possible!

Edited by YungMarxian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, YungMarxian said:

Separate post for a truly dumb idea:

(GG)  Rush hour only
Church Avenue (F)<F> (G)
7 Av (F)<F>(G) 
Bergen St (F)<F> (G) (since this is a dumb idea anyway, let's assume the lower platform is restored)
Jay St-Metrotech (A)(C)(F)<F>(R) 
High St (A)(C) 
Fulton St (2)(3)(4)(5)(A)(C)(J)(Z) 
Chambers St-WTC Park Pl (2)(3)(A)(C)(E) 

Turning around after Chambers St would require the T.O. to walk through the car from end to end though. But like I said. Dumb idea. For added dumbness, you can have the train terminate after 14 St by running up to the layaway track after 23 St and doing the same procedure. Again. Dumb. But possible!

If you’re going to do this, why not layup trains on the Middle Track between Chambers and Canal Streets?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

If you’re going to do this, why not layup trains on the Middle Track between Chambers and Canal Streets?

Yeah, sorry if it wasn't clear, but what I was implying is to use that middle track to turn the train around. Is that what you mean by lay up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, YungMarxian said:

The (RJ) idea is interesting. And adding an express stop to Sea Beach sounds good if it is feasible. Would Chambers need to have a control room added/restored to help trains turn around during non rush hour? Also, would the Mott St station be on Mott and Canal? Tunnel access to the Other Canal st Stations or OOS transfer?

Edit: further question: is the demand for more south BK service to Lower Manhattan large enough to grant this renovation?

At Chambers, (RJ)s would terminate in the inner two tracks, (J)s would use the outer two. Some rush-hour (Z)s would be cut back to Chambers, using the middle tracks.

Mott St Station would be on Canal St, from Elizabeth to Mulberry, with exits at Elizabeth and Mott. The Mulberry end of the station would have a tunnel to the (J)(Z) platforms, where you could connect to the rest of the Canal St complex. There would be an OOS transfer from Mott St (RJ) to Grand St (B)(D). This would also mean that you could transfer from the (B)(D) to the (RJ)(6)<6>(J)(Z)(N)(Q)(R)(W).

Thoughts?

Also, I have once again edited my Red Hook map. @Snorunts, this is what I was talking about in the bus thread.

Here is the link:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=19TDLNqNtF21VKb70gFefV5e3ai0u0tZy&usp=sharing

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

If you’re going to do this, why not layup trains on the Middle Track between Chambers and Canal Streets?

Why indulge this stupidity?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Union Tpke said:

Why indulge this stupidity?

I’m not sure. Maybe to get a better idea of what was being proposed, or I could be simply bored. 
 

@YungMarxian If you’re trying to propose Culver Express Service, then a much simpler idea (one that won’t interfere with the (A) and (C)) would be to make 5 (F)’s go Express and the other 10 go Local. In addition to that, you could also boost (G) service by having it run 15-16 TPH and boosting it to 8 cars. If you want to spice things up, you could terminate some (G) trains at 18th Avenue as opposed to Church Avenue. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Union Tpke said:

Why indulge this stupidity?

I've acknowledged that this is a dumb idea. Isn't this forum for fun?

2 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

 

@YungMarxian If you’re trying to propose Culver Express Service, then a much simpler idea (one that won’t interfere with the (A) and (C)) would be to make 5 (F)’s go Express and the other 10 go Local. In addition to that, you could also boost (G) service by having it run 15-16 TPH and boosting it to 8 cars. If you want to spice things up, you could terminate some (G) trains at 18th Avenue as opposed to Church Avenue. 

Lol yeah that would definitely make a lot more sense, and in the real world, I would actually like to see this over that (GG). Could Culver handle 25 TPH from Bergen to Church? I don't know the maximum throughputs of the different lines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just had this weird (yes, I know that this will sound really weird and probably ridiculous) idea for a new (K) in a similar alignment to the (RJ) proposal... but with a slight twist.
A new connector near Bowery/Grand Street would have to be put into place in order for this to work, or you could be ridiculous and reverse the train at Essex. Anyway, here is my weird plan (probably very limited rush hour service only):
Orange (K) \ Sea Beach Express \ 4th Avenue Local \ Nassau \ Sixth Avenue Local \ Second Avenue

Coney Island (D)(F)<F>(N)(Q) 
Kings Highway (N) 
(Option to go local or express to 59th Street after)
59th Street (N)(R)

All 4th Avenue Local stops to DeKalb, then continuing via the Montague Tunnel to the Nassau line:

Broad Street (J)(Z)

All Nassau stops to Chambers or Canal Streets. If to Chambers, then a connection can be made to Grand Street (B)(D) , or of to Canal, then an additional connector before Bowery would have to be made. If both options unavailable, then the train proceeds to Essex Street and then reverses to the Sixth Avenue Line.

All 6th Avenue local stops are made to Lex-63rd, then via the Second Avenue Line to:

96th Street (Q) 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Tonyboy515 said:

All 4th Avenue Local stops to DeKalb, then continuing via the Montague Tunnel to the Nassau line:

Why not 4 Av Express?

10 minutes ago, Tonyboy515 said:

All Nassau stops to Chambers or Canal Streets. If to Chambers, then a connection can be made to Grand Street (B)(D) , or of to Canal, then an additional connector before Bowery would have to be made. If both options unavailable, then the train proceeds to Essex Street and then reverses to the Sixth Avenue Line.

You obviously won't want to reverse at Essex. You could use the existing tracks from Chambers, then go under the (N)(Q) (not that hard as they are just about to enter the Manhattan Bridge

12 minutes ago, Tonyboy515 said:

All 6th Avenue local stops are made to Lex-63rd, then via the Second Avenue Line to:

Not enough capacity on 6 Av, I think!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.